What is Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan authority for?

A citizen is free to carry on business within the law, and mere tax planning without a motive to evade taxes through colorable devices is not frowned upon. The liability to taxation, for the purpose of tax treaty application, is a legal situation, not the fiscal fact of actual payment.

How many judgments cite Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan?

691 judgments on BharatTax cite Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 139(1), Section 90, Section 234B, Section 143(2), Section 143(1).

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (263 ITR 706)

M/S. Castlewick Fze, Dubai vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Chennai

ITA 459/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 201Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 9(1)(vii)

…Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the said business income would not be subject to tax in India. 1.5 The Ld.AO and Ld. DRP erred in ignoring the principle laid down in Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Azadi Bachao Andalon vs Union of India [263 ITR 706 (SC)] that once a DTAA applies, the provisions of the Income Tax Act can only apply to the extent that they are more beneficial to the assessee and not otherwise. Thus, in the present case where India-UAE DTAA does not have a specific clause to tax FTS and the residual clause under Article 22 provides that the residuary income would not be taxabl…

Prashant Kothari, Singapore vs. CIT A (57) Mumbai, Office of Commissioner of Appeals Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground of

ITA 5391/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Section 250

…e (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. vs. ADIT (MA No 520/Mum/2010), Sanofi Pasteur Holding SA vs. Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance [2013] 354 ITR 316 (Andhra Pradesh), Aroon Purie vs. CIT [2015] 375 ITR 188 (Delhi), Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC). Kasinka Trading vs. Union of India a [1995] SCC 274 and APL Co Pte. Ltd vs. ADIT [2017] 185 TTJ 305 (Mumbal-Trib.). It was submitted that the appellant should be allowed benefit of Article 13(4) of India-Singapore DTAA in respect of capital gains. 12. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered by the Ld. CIT(A). As per Ld. CI…

Amar Devi Family Welfare Trust, Jalandhar vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi

ITA 5246/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Pradip Dinodia, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153B

…lights the fact that the indian tax authorities had made the above statutory reference for Financial Years 2009-10 to 2013- 14 in the assessee's case. Faced with this situation, we wish to quote Union of India and Anr. Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and Linklaters LLP vs. ITO (2010) 9 ITR (Trib.) 217 (Mum) that tax treaties between two sovereigns could not be literally interpreted as literal meanings of the terms incorporated therein are not really conclusive factors in interpretation of a tax treaty which ought to be interpreted in “good faith” on the “basis of general expectation of t…

ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Metenare Global Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 5809/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 5245/Del/2018: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5246/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 8055/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Amar Devi Family Welfare Trust, Vs Acit, F-73, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-17, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaata4455B Ita No. 5811/Del/2017: Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 5812/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Amar Devi Family Welfare Trust, 1St Floor, B-18, Model Town Road, Central Circle-17, New Delhi Jalandhar, Punjab-144005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaata4455B Ita No. 5809/Del/2017: Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 5810/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Metenere Global Ltd., Central Circle-17, 138-139, Ghazipur, New Delhi Delhi-110096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg0722E Assessee By : Sh. Pradip Dinodia, Adv. & Sh. R. K. Kapoor, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Pradip Dinodia, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153B

…lights the fact that the indian tax authorities had made the above statutory reference for Financial Years 2009-10 to 2013- 14 in the assessee’s case. Faced with this situation, we wish to quote Union of India and Anr. Vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Anr. (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC) and Linklaters LLP vs. ITO (2010) 9 ITR (Trib.) 217 (Mum) that tax treaties between two sovereigns could not be literally interpreted as literal meanings of the terms incorporated therein are not really conclusive factors in interpretation of a tax treaty which ought to be interpreted in “good faith” on the “basis of general expectation of t…

ACIT Cental Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5657/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi

Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

…CTO (1985) 47 CTR ISC) 126 (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in 10 ITA 5657/M/24-CO 276/ M/ 24-ITA 5620/ M/24 -CO 277M/ 24- ITA 5622/M/24- Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd. the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706(SC) it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on ita business within the four comers of the law. That mere tax planning, without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgment of this Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. case (supral. Hence. in the cases arising before 1st April, 2002, losses pertaini…

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi

Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

…CTO (1985) 47 CTR ISC) 126 (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in 10 ITA 5657/M/24-CO 276/ M/ 24-ITA 5620/ M/24 -CO 277M/ 24- ITA 5622/M/24- Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd. the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706(SC) it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on ita business within the four comers of the law. That mere tax planning, without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgment of this Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. case (supral. Hence. in the cases arising before 1st April, 2002, losses pertaini…

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the C

ITA 5620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Bishnoi

Section 10(35)Section 132Section 250Section 94(7)

…CTO (1985) 47 CTR ISC) 126 (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in 10 ITA 5657/M/24-CO 276/ M/ 24-ITA 5620/ M/24 -CO 277M/ 24- ITA 5622/M/24- Subhkam Ventures (I) Pvt. Ltd. the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706(SC) it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on ita business within the four comers of the law. That mere tax planning, without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgment of this Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. case (supral. Hence. in the cases arising before 1st April, 2002, losses pertaini…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1262/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

For Respondent: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…yment is treated as royalty under the Act, the same may not still be subject to withholding tax under section 195 of the Act, if the said payment is not treated as royalty under the applicable DTAA. Reliance was placed on Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 707 (SC) and various other decisions. - The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a 'copyrighted article' and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not 'royalty' under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of Engineering Analys…

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1207/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…ent is treated as royalty under the Act, the same may not still be subject to withholding tax under section 195 of the Act, if the said payment is not treated as royalty under the applicable DTAA. Reliance was placed on Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan - 263 ITR 707 (SC) and various other decisions. - The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a 'copyrighted article’ and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of Engineering Analy…

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1193/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

…ent is treated as royalty under the Act, the same may not still be subject to withholding tax under section 195 of the Act, if the said payment is not treated as royalty under the applicable DTAA. Reliance was placed on Union of India v Azadi Bachao Andolan - 263 ITR 707 (SC) and various other decisions. - The payments made during the subject A.Y. are not taxable as royalty as the same relates to payment for the acquisition of a 'copyrighted article’ and not the 'copyright' as such and hence, is not ‘royalty’ under the relevant DTAA. Reliance was placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of Engineering Analy…

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 623/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…held that circulars issued by the Board are binding: - (i) Navnit Lal C Javeri Vs. Sen (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) (ii) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) (iii) UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) (iv) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachoo Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706(SC) In the above decisions the Apex Court of the Country has reiterated that wherever CBDT has issued instructions/circulars to relieve hardships the same are of binding nature. In view of this it is submitted that the surrender of income obtained in confessional statement goes against the spirit of the circulars issued by the Board quoted below…

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 611/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…held that circulars issued by the Board are binding: - (i) Navnit Lal C Javeri Vs. Sen (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) (ii) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) (iii) UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) (iv) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachoo Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706(SC) In the above decisions the Apex Court of the Country has reiterated that wherever CBDT has issued instructions/circulars to relieve hardships the same are of binding nature. In view of this it is submitted that the surrender of income obtained in confessional statement goes against the spirit of the circulars issued by the Board quoted below…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Income Tax Department vs. Rashesh Manhar Bhansali, Andheri East

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5107/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…neness of the transaction. With regard to the ruling in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr (2003) 184 CTR 450,263 ITR 706 (SC) it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on its business within the four corners of the law. That, mere tax planning, without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgment of this Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. 's case (supra). Hence, in the cases arising before 1st April, 2002, losses pe…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Welsh and Breton Blenders Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 603/HYD/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Sashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 194HSection 40

…s principle has been supported by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Banyan And Berry vs., CIT [1996] 222 ITR 831 (Guj.) which has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs., Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer is erred in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has designed tax avoidance method for payment of tax which is nothing but a colourable device. 14. In this view of the matter and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the consi…

Indira Veluri, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2513/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Sri Pavan Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Standing counsel for department

Section 250Section 253(5)

…icial to a taxpayer. Therefore, the provisions of DTAA override the provisions of the Act, to the extent they are beneficial to the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following cases and circulars: Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) CIT v Eli Lily & Co (India) P Ltd (2009) 178 Taxman 505 (SC) GE India Technology Centre P Ltd v CIT (2010) 193 Taxman 234 (SC) Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P Ltd v CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 42 (SC) (Pg 106-109 of PB 2-Para 25 & 26) CBDT Circular No 333 dated 2/4/82 137 ITR (St.) It was submitted that when there is no condition…

Bhupendra Bora, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 230/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun02 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara(Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. Dcit, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajkpb5486A Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 192Section 90

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Bhupendra Bora, Vs. DCIT, Flat No. S4, Plot No. 618A, Circle-1(1)(1), Sector-1, Vaishali, Dehradun Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AJKPB5486A Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/03/2025 Date of pronouncement 02/04/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 230/DDN/2024 for AY 2019-20, arises out of the order of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [he…

Sridharan Venkatanarayanan, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 12(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Sridharan Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Venkatanarayanan Income Tax, Circle 12(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bgaps6316N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A V. Balaji राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: C.A V. BalajiFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 91

…of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner 1992 (1) Supp SCC 21, Sambhaji v. Gangabai [2008] 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act is only directory, since DTAA over rides the Act, and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. 8.…

Il&Fs Rail Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed, pro tanto

ITA 1288/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.994/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Kosi Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaick-6199-B बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(2), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 आअसं.1027/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Hoohly Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aafch-6609-C बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 आअसं.1070/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Luni Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaecl-5180-H बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002

…s are enforceable like municipal law, and are to be given equal weight by courts. 8. The ASG relied upon the decisions in Gramaphone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey 1984 [2] SCR 664 and Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706/2003 (Supp 4) SCR 222 to urge that the position in India is entrenched that without enabling legislation, any convention or event flowing from a convention, as in creation of rights and liabilities of third parties to conventions or treaties, do not operate on their own, and needs an intervening action by the Union, giving effect to such obligati…

Suresh Kumar Vobbilisetty, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1204/HYD/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1204/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Suresh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Vobbilisetty, (International Taxation)-2 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acgpv5441G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca K Hemalatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA K HemalathaFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 91

…of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner 1992 (1) Supp SCC 21, Sambhaji v. Gangabai [2008] 17 SCC 117 and a lot many decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the case in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 132 Taxman 373/263 ITR 706 etc. and reached a conclusion that since Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in the case of delay in filing Form 67 and such filing within the time allowed for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act is only directory, since DTAA over rides the Act, and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. 8.…

Madan Kumar Sivinigari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2606/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

…give FTC. He also submitted that the issue was debatable and cannot be subject matter of decision in Sec.154 proceedings which are restricted in scope to mistakes apparent on the face of the record. and circulars: Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC) CIT v Eli Lily & Co (India) P Ltd (2009) 178 Taxman 505. 15. In his rejoinder, the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that Form No.67 was available before the AO when the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 28.5.2020 was passed. He pointed out that the AO or the CIT(A) did not dismiss the Assessee application for rectification u/s…

Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

What is Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan

M/S. Castlewick Fze, Dubai vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(1), Chennai

Prashant Kothari, Singapore vs. CIT A (57) Mumbai, Office of Commissioner of Appeals Mumbai

Amar Devi Family Welfare Trust, Jalandhar vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi

ACIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Metenare Global Ltd, New Delhi

ACIT Cental Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

ACIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Subhkam Ventures (I) Private Limited, Mumbai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Income Tax Department vs. Rashesh Manhar Bhansali, Andheri East

Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad vs. Welsh and Breton Blenders Private Limited, Hyderabad

Indira Veluri, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Bangalore

Bhupendra Bora, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Dehradun

Sridharan Venkatanarayanan, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle- 12(1), Hyderabad

Il&Fs Rail Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

Suresh Kumar Vobbilisetty, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation-2, Hyderabad

Madan Kumar Sivinigari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore